Academics absolutely do have fruitful arguments about religion and politics. Pretending that there is nothing to learn is just anti-intellectualism.

You’re right, and I agree wholeheartedly: academics absolutely do have fruitful arguments about religion and politics.

I read Graham’s point as narrower than “there’s nothing to learn.” He explicitly says: “There are certainly some political questions that have definite answers.”

The warning label is about identity capture. Once a view becomes part of who you are, the odds of real updating drop: “people can never have a fruitful argument about something that’s part of their identity.” Or, put positively: “you can have a fruitful discussion … so long as you exclude people who respond from identity.”

So the issue isn’t the topic. It’s what happens when belief turns into a kind of badge.

I also didn't do very well with most beans, but for some reason chickpeas don't bother me, if you haven't tried them.

Yep, I now have a lentil-based staple that also has grams, but that's of course after planning and adaptation.

Is pretty clear that eating cholesterol doesn't lead to higher blood cholesterol. It just doesn't matter.

No, doctors still recommend limiting the intake of cholesterol in food, and also saturated fat. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol#Medical_guidelines...

https://www.heart.org/en/news/2023/08/25/heres-the-latest-on...

Its actually not "pretty clear"—about 25-30% of people are hyper responders who are impacted by dietary cholesterol.

You wouldn’t happen to know the specific genetic markers for this, it’s the only thing I’d like to know about myself so I could eat eggs guilt free. A cursory search keeps giving me not the results I want to see.

From ://nutritionfacts.org/video/dietary-guidelines-eat-as-little-dietary-cholesterol-as-possible/

"Most studies regarding cholesterol are bought and paid for by the egg industry. "

One of those Egg Council creeps got to you, too, huh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuojmEoI51w

The argument I've seen is that because the US has worse medical care in general, it makes sense to get more vaccinations.

There are processes that convert, but it's typically only small amounts. They aren't interchangable in effect.

depends on how fat you already are - if you are, 100% of it converts. For anyone that is addicted to sugar they are pretty much a fat person. The sugar industry is blaming themselves.

Imagine how much worse it would be without the public transportation siphoning off so many riders.

For sure, but in many places it just couldn't realistically be much worse and the main consequences would probably be on the local economy rather than the amount of road use. Less people would be able to travel at all, inevitably leading to reduced need for travel.

Where I live, fascists are way more threatening than communists. Other parts of the world, might be the other way around.

The right to travel is a basic human right, whether any particular government recognizes it or not. People have been migrating to make a better life for themselves since humans have existed. Your ancestors did it, my ancestors did it. Good luck sweeping back the tide.

> Good luck sweeping back the tide.

$170B should make a big dent! Southern border encounters are way down: I think it's working!

And how much do you think illegal immigration is costing tax payers for medical care in comparison?

Exactly, none. Illegal immigrants get no federal health care by law.

Dont bother, the user arguing doesnt care about laws, he cares about hurting immigrants for the sake that they're immigrants

Plenty of people overstay their visa. And then we have the administration changing the rules to make people that were legal, suddenly not.

This only works if Trump is president for life. He only has three years left in office, and you can't build nuclear that fast.

I don’t think Democrats are virulently anti Nuclear the way Trump hates wind farms. Unlike Trump, I don’t think they’ll just stop a popular project meant to provide power for a region.

And in any case 3 years might not finish projects but it might seed a lot of private investment and R&D

It's not a question of being anti-nuclear, is just that nobody is going to pay for it if there are cheaper sources of energy. The only thing that would keep it alive is if the government keeps intentionally killing solar and wind projects.

There is no such things as "democrats". There are individual politicians that usually group together. 30 years ago I would confidently say most democrats would be against nuclear, but the political winds have changed. I think the old ones would still be strongly against nuclear, but the younger ones don't care as much.